To have just emailed Jeremy Hunt

(64 Posts)
Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 01:16:39

and told him exactly what I thought of him and his anti choice views on abortion, using the word 'disgusted' far too many times for someone not from Tunbridge Wells...then to have emailed Dianne Abbott and thanked her for standing up for women's rights. Even though I am a Tory.

SmokyClav Sat 06-Oct-12 01:22:56

He is a cunt.

BadDayAtTheOrifice Sat 06-Oct-12 01:29:18

I couldn't think of a worse person to be health minister tbh. I despair for the health service and what is about to become of it and we could do without his personal opinions fucking everything up a bit more.
Fucking cunt.

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 01:35:10

Glad it's not just me then. I wonder if he will reply. I might just keep emailing him as he has really p*ssed me off after a really good evening.

Narked Sat 06-Oct-12 01:37:50

For anyone who doesn't know, our health minister has decided to air his views that the abortion limit should be lowered to 12 weeks. On no medical grounds or evidence. Because he thinks that 12 weeks 'is the right point for it.'

Narked Sat 06-Oct-12 01:39:38

You'd have thought he would have been too busy dismantling the NHS to start taking away women's medical choices, but he's multitasking.

NewNames Sat 06-Oct-12 01:42:29

YANBU grin

Ne surprised if the dickhead can read though.

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 01:47:39

Thanks for making me smile wryly with that, Narked! Can we maybe get him a few more (polite-ish, obviously) emails please?

sausagerolemodel Sat 06-Oct-12 01:50:34

Might you consider not being a Tory? Because this is what they align themselves with.

BadDayAtTheOrifice Sat 06-Oct-12 01:53:08

Does he have the power to actually do this just on his say-so? Surely decisions like this will have to be evidence based as in other areas of medicine and not just because he thinks 'its best'?
He obviously has no idea that alot of antenatal screening is done at 20+ weeks.
Cunt.

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 02:03:40

He's just spouting off, No. 10 has issued a statement I think I heard, to say they wont be changing the limit. But really he shouldn't be in that job.
Sausage; I have no other party I can bear to vote for, unless you can suggest an obscure one I haven't come across yet?

izzyizin Sat 06-Oct-12 02:09:10

Dianne Abbot standing up for women's rights rather than her own? shock

You have BU to thank that self-serving waste of space for anything.

As for Mr -C--Hunt, you ABU to expect any politician to know their arse from their elbow or spout anything other than what they're told to, or what they believe will is votecatching barnstorming oration.

izzyizin Sat 06-Oct-12 02:09:48

Bring back the Nun of the Above party.

Narked Sat 06-Oct-12 02:14:55

He knows. He doesn't care.

Voting on abortion is usually done 'on conscience' rather than party lines, but the Tories have been planning something for months.

Nadine Dorries proposed a fruit loop (no surprise there) amendment to stop BPAS - and anyone involved with the provision of abortions - from offering pre abortion counselling. That would have ruled out the NHS too. The only groups with the funds and will to offer counselling that have no involvement in the provision of abortion services are ... anti abortion groups! Amazing coincidence that.

Right before - seriously, minutes before - she was about to propose it Frank Fields (anti abortion) MP pulled out as co sponsor. Only a few die hards voted for it (including Maria Miller the Minister for Women.) Fields pulling out felt very odd. Here.The government basically bought off the less loopy anti abortion MPs by creating a 'cross party' committee to discuss changes to abortion regulation. Diane Abbott resigned from this a while ago, saying that far from being open discussion it was totally dominated by those against abortion. Here.

This is the next step in time for conference. They will look for support from the religious right in exchange for cutting the time limits.

Narked Sat 06-Oct-12 02:21:53

They've shown before that they will bend to a negative response from their own voters. You wouldn't need to vote for anyone else - just to abstain or eg vote green. The loss of a vote is enough to damage them.

We have a Health Secretary who buys into homeopathy. And whose opinion on this is not based on the fact that he's a Christian, oh no. It's based on the fact that it's 'fundamental moral issue' hmm

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 02:34:07

Interesting. We pro-choicers really need to get organised or it could all snowball and end up like the US..
I think this has really done it for me and the Tories, on top of HS2 destroying the countryside. I can't vote Green as I think they are still anti hunting but I will look into other parties.

He is an absolute knobber. I think that lowering the age to 20 weeks might be a good idea with the improved survival rates, but to talk about 12 weeks is idiotic.

I don't think abortion should be bandied about as a political or moral issue - it's a medical procedure that is no one's business but the woman's.

SarryB Sat 06-Oct-12 06:39:28

12 weeks. The man quite clearly knows NOTHING about women, pregnancy or abortion.

VeritableSmorgasbord Sat 06-Oct-12 06:39:34

Good on you for emailing.
The worst thing about this govt is the impotence one feels as they slowly, slowly chip away at the things the people (whom they supposedly serve, ha ha) have fought for over the years.

SarryB Sat 06-Oct-12 06:40:35

I might do a Rachel from Friends here.

"No uterus, no opinion".

I thought the same, SarryB. But I don't understand why anyone has to have an opinion on abortion because it's nothing to do with anybody else.

Teamthrills Sat 06-Oct-12 07:05:08

Between Jeremy Hunt & Michael Gove, they are doing a wonderful job of messing up this country. What a pair of twats.

lovebunny Sat 06-Oct-12 07:12:01

12 weeks? prof vivien glover suggested that the fetus feels pain from around 13 weeks. perhaps that's why twelve weeks seemed reasonable to jeremy hunt.

Panzee Sat 06-Oct-12 07:14:45

Beautifully put,*teamthrills*.

seeker Sat 06-Oct-12 07:54:11

Prof Vivette Glover suggested in 2000 that the foetus might have sensation earlier than prevously though. Nobody agreed with her.

BeckAndCall Sat 06-Oct-12 08:01:08

He did say it was on the basis of having studied the evidence - so he might be referring to Prof Glovers research

Even so, he's made a dreadful mistake in coming out with his conclusion before sharing the evidence and letting us all know WHY he's come to that conclusion. No matter how good the evidence there is no way he will gain any support for his conclusion if he hasn't started with the facts, whatever they are.

Bad political mistake by him, I'm afraid - you can't take the most divisive issue in women's politics, make a pronouncement and expect anyone to engage in serious debate with you about a potential policy change when you've already drawn your line in the sand so far away from the one that at least half of the electorate are standing firmly behind. (guessing on the 'half', there)

ExasperatedSigh Sat 06-Oct-12 08:08:47

YANBU. He is revolting and I am genuinely scared that he has been given power over healthcare provision.

GhostofMammaTJ Sat 06-Oct-12 08:12:29

Having seen a baby born at 24 weeks in SCBU I do agree that that is too late. The point about screening starting at 20 weeks is a good one though.

Maybe screening at 18 weeks and cut off for abortion being 20 weeks, if that is possible. Or keep screening at 20 weeks and abortion cut off at 22 weeks.

MoreBeta Sat 06-Oct-12 08:16:01

I just heard about this on the news and my immediate reaction was this is an utterly cynical proposal knowing full well that 12 weeks is such a short time limit that most women will find it a practical impossibility to get a pregnancy test, see their GP, get a referal, counselling if necessary, make an informed decison and get an appointment to have the abortion procedure carried out.

I do think that now medical science has advanced there is a case for reducing the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks - but not 12 weeks.

This proposal is all about stopping abortions happening while avoiding a parliamentary debate on an actual outright ban which would never get a majority vote.

Lottapianos Sat 06-Oct-12 08:16:59

Well done OP. He should keep his shitty opinions to himself from now on. Or just resign - there's an idea!

EauRouge Sat 06-Oct-12 08:17:57

I don't know enough about screening to know if it's possible at 18 weeks but I think that women should be given long enough to decide if anything bad shows up on their anomaly scan.

12 weeks can fuck the fuck off. If it's an unplanned pregnancy then how many women won't even find out until it's too late to organise a termination? As for 'it just feels right' angry Fuck off, Jeremy Hunt, your feelings have fuck all to do with my uterus.

Figgygal Sat 06-Oct-12 08:21:04

Hasn't he said its own opinion? He's entitled to that opinion however agree it brings into question his objectivity in his role

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 06-Oct-12 08:21:39

It said on R4 today that the cast majority (91%) of abortions are carried out before 13 weeks. So I can only assume that the remainder are extreme situations and women who need our protection.

Does anyone have any info on late abortions?

I agree with BeckandCall

kerrygrey Sat 06-Oct-12 08:24:26

Well, I've read through all the posts and no one has said it, so I will. It is my uterus and my body certainly, but there is another human being involved. Removing your child/potential child is not like removing a tumour or an appendix. A death is involved.

MoreBeta Sat 06-Oct-12 08:25:50

It is not just a personal opinion though, as if he had expressed it in an overheard private conversation.

He is the minister in charge of the UK healthcare system and he has given this opinion to the news media. It is bound to be seen as a significant intervention.

Couchsweetpotato Sat 06-Oct-12 08:29:15

There is NO time limit on abortion for serious health problems, so it's all a bit of a red herring. The number of abortions after 13 weeks is low-in 2011, 91% happened then, and around 1% after 20 weeks. The majority of post 20 week abortions are for serious health conditions.

Many trusts will still refuse to resuscitate a baby under 24 weeks as health outcomes are so poor.

Testing is less effective at 18 weeks than 20, and slightly later can be even better depending on individual circumstances.

Frankly, I think Jeremy Hunt is being a huge giant woman hating stupid arsehole and I am profoundly depressed the Minister for Women, FFS, is engaged in trying to reduce the limit on abortions. It is profoundly, profoundly depressing.

seeker Sat 06-Oct-12 08:29:58

Less than 2% of abortions are between 20 and 24 weeks.

Lovelygoldboots Sat 06-Oct-12 08:35:46

A really worrying development, shows the tories for the cynical bastards they are if they are prepared to use this issue for political gain.

Panzee Sat 06-Oct-12 09:21:25

Thank you for the info on later abortions. So if so few people are doing it, why bother legislating for it?

lavelle11 Sat 06-Oct-12 10:32:16

a baby has to grow ,breathe and live to get to 20 weeks or 12 weeks the only way you can stop this is by killing it. I feel for all the mothers who do not actually realise what is involved in abortion and suffer the consequences for many years after. God still loves them and their baby who they can meet one day in heaven if they choose. God Bless

ForkInTheForeheid Sat 06-Oct-12 10:35:50

What really worries me about this "following the evidence" (re: foetal survival rates/whatever piece of "research" Mr. cunt Hunt is proposing) approach to abortion is that we have no idea where medical science is going to take us in the future. The focus on the foetus, rather than the mother, moves the argument away from the real issue, which for me is women's right to bodily autonomy.

I'm personally deeply uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion and am 99% sure I would never have one (barring life endangering situations). However that is my choice over my body and every single woman should have the same right to choose what happens to her. As uncomfortable as the idea of 20 week abortions might be (and let's face it, it is) the woman involved is not an incubator and the government/medical establishment have no right to treat her like one.

ForkInTheForeheid Sat 06-Oct-12 10:36:43

(grrr, must preview, Mr Hunt is referring to in his proposal, not proposing)

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 11:07:42

Exactly Fork, why would someone put the life of a foetus over a woman? That is what I have asked him in the email. lavelle11 I think all women know what an abortion means and they have one because they are desperate and have no choice.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Sat 06-Oct-12 13:06:48

I agree with him.

I don't think the decision should be based on medical evidence, it's an ethical debate, not a medical one. Timing for scans and screening are irrelevant because there is already no time limit on abortion for babies that have serious medical issues, and there is no reason why that needs to change.

Narked Sat 06-Oct-12 13:18:46

'it's an ethical debate, not a medical one'

No. It's really not.

LonelyCloud Sat 06-Oct-12 13:25:02

OP, I suggest that you also e-mail your MP, you can find their contact details on this link:

Find Your MP

If the issue of changing abortion limits does come to a free vote, then IMO the MP you're in a position to vote for at the next general election is the one who's going to care most about your view.

PeshwariNaan Sat 06-Oct-12 13:25:33

Well done you!

PeshwariNaan Sat 06-Oct-12 13:27:20

It is a medical debate, end of story.

I'm from the US and you do not want the situation there at the moment re: abortion. It is absolutely vile. In some states it is to the point where rapes are being judged as "bad enough" or "not bad enough" to receive an abortion.

gordyslovesheep Sat 06-Oct-12 13:47:56

it's a medical procedure - it's a medical debate - the rest is down to your own personal ethics, morals and beliefs - which are fine but have no place in deciding what is legal for other people to choose

he is a stupid man

xkittyx Sat 06-Oct-12 13:55:07

lavelle how can a fetus "breathe" in utero? Don't be daft. The first breathe is taken after birth.

seeker Sat 06-Oct-12 13:55:37

It might be an ethical debate for individuals- but it's a medical debate for legislators. Or should be.

SmokyClav Sat 06-Oct-12 20:39:42

of course the decision should be made on medical evidence- it is a medical procedure.
What other procedure would you base on ethical debate? Oh, is it right or wrong to perform back surgery on this woman with scoliosis? hmm

DawnOfTheDee Sat 06-Oct-12 20:45:13

Jeremy Hunt also believes in homeopathy. So if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, just swallow a tiny amount of baby & it'll clear right up.

FreudiansGoldSlipper Sat 06-Oct-12 20:50:24

good on you

i do not want any changes to be made as the reasons why women have late terminations are very varied and it is not because they have had a change of heart often these women have to make a heartbreaking decision. sadly at times it is needed for them and imo women should always always have full control over their OWN body

piprabbit Sat 06-Oct-12 20:53:46

The difference between Jeremy Hunt and the rest of us is that he is in a position to potentially turn his weirdy beliefe into legislation.

It reminds of the South African politician who didn't believe that condoms helped to prevent STIs such as HIV - and who actively worked to prevent people having the information and protection which might save their lives.

Surely this is just a ruse to soften us all up for when they cut it to 20 weeks, hence the PM responding "oh nonsense nonsense... But now i come to think of it 20 weeks seems about right".

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 21:30:01

Like your post Dawn smile
Think you are right Harpie I am rapidly going off the party I have supported for many years

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 04:53:04

It weeks is clearly conservative nonsense and yes we need to beware of the example set by the US. To clarify a point made earlier the cut off for resuscitation in neonatal intensive care is 22 weeks (Not 24 as suggested earlier). surely it is an ethical debate based on the medical evidence. We have the science to do abortions at whatever date, the science to resuscitate after 22 weeks (although outcomes clearly not great) - surely we need to decide where we feel comfortable as a nation on an ethical level. But that is a debate which, if held, needs to be held openly, with the scientific evidence, evidence from those involved. Not one mans private opinion thrown out there willy nilly. I often have a private opinion about matters at work but I keep it to myself.

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 04:54:00

A rouge weeks seems to have snuck into my post.....

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 04:56:04

Rogue

I absolutely agree with what Fork said earlier - the abortion cut off date should not be linked to the fetus's potential to survive outside the womb if it's wired up to enough science. If we make that link, then as medicine advances, the window for abortion will reduce in parallel, until it might not exist at all, and women would have to carry babies to term from conception, regardless of the phsychological, physical, financial or social consequences, on the basis that with enough intervention, the newly implanted blastocyst could feasibly survive and develop in a mechanised womb.

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 08:59:52

smoky chav
Of courses doctors and hospitals have ethical debates about whether to perform certain procedures. That's why hospitals have ethics committees.

Panzee Sun 07-Oct-12 09:11:37

Well said leftwingharpie. Most pregnancies that are allowed to go to term result in a healthy baby. So by that reasoning no abortions should be allowed at all. It's really not the point.

AuntieStella Sun 07-Oct-12 09:20:47

To answer the poster above: no he has no power to change it (it would require a change in the law). It is very unlikely that any one person could have sway over every single MP, especially on what would be an unwhipped vote. And more importantly, no, it's no part of the coalition Government's policy to make any changes to this law (no sign of any proposals, disavowed by those who matter, despite a couple of ministerial comments).

And the Health Service is about far more than the dates within which one procedure can be carried out, isn't it?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now